Finally, land swaps may get voters' OK

by Howard Fischer - Sept. 27, 2012 09:38 AMCapitol Media Services

Sen. John Nelson, R-Litchfield Park, thinks lawmakers have addressed the issues that have led voters seven times to reject ballot measures that would have given the state power to trade away public lands.

He thinks the eighth time is a charm.

It appears to be the case.

Proposition 119 has no organized opposition. In fact, it has the active support of several environmental groups who rallied voters to kill several of the earlier versions.

Nelson said proponents plan to raise money to campaign for the measure.

The issue arose because, when Arizona became a state, the federal government gave it close to 11 million acres of land to be held in trust. The proceeds from the sale or lease of the property or from selling timber or mineral rights is largely earmarked for public schools.

About 9.3 million acres remain.

The Arizona Constitution says lands can be sold only to the highest bidder. Proposition 119 would create an exception for land swaps.

The reason, said Nelson, is the need to preserve open space around military bases.

The state could make deals with developers who own large tracts of land around the bases. The developers would get other parcels of state-owned land on which they could plan communities.

The state, as the new owner of the land, would be able to preclude the kind of high-density residential development that can lead the military to move operations out of state.

There have been many prior versions of the measure. Most were defeated amid concerns by conservation groups that savvy developers would find a way to take advantage of such a system, acquiring choice parcels of land, perhaps environmentally sensitive parcels, without public oversight.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, said voters should be skeptical of land swaps.

"There are lots of examples of how the public has been ripped off," as other levels of government, not subject to the constitutional restrictions, have traded away choice pieces of property for something worth far less, she said.

But this measure, Bahr said, is different.

"The bottom line is voters have the last say on land exchanges," she said. "This isn't open-ended, broad authority for the state Land Department to go out and do a deal."

Under the latest measure, Bahr said, the state would come up with a proposal. But it would require public hearings, appraisals and an analysis of the costs and benefits

Then, the plan would go to the Legislature. If lawmakers approve, voters decide .

What also has brought the environmental groups on board is that, while the land exchanges focus on preserving space around military bases, there could be conservation benefits.

"Some examples could be state lands down around the San Pedro (River) and Fort Huachuca," Bahr said.

"That alone is enough to vote 'yes' on this because the San Pedro is a critically important river from a conservation perspective," she said. "And Fort Huachuca is essential to the economy of the Sierra Vista area."

Bahr's organization signed on in support of a similar version two years ago. The measure came within 10,000 votes of being approved out of about 1.6 million votes cast.

And that was without any sort of campaign.

Supporters won't make that mistake again, Nelson said, because there will be "more collaboration between the environmental community and those of us on the military side" to ensure that there are funds to get out the message.